"I
have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to
limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention
could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen might try
to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is
no way to assure that the Convention would obey it." —Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

"Having
witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention,
I would tremble for the result of the second." —James
Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United
States

"All
men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
—James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11,
1787

We could
lose our God given rights, secured by the 1787 Constitution if a new call
for a Con-Con is successful. The Constitution is about the specific powers
we delegated to the federal government. Our rights pre-date and pre-exist
the Constitution. The sole purpose of civil government is to secure those
rights. Knowing what is waiting in the wings, if we lose this Constitution,
all will finally be lost, and the war for our freedoms would be over.
If you never read another one of my articles, I beg you to read and disseminate
this one. Then contact your state legislators and find out where your
state stands regarding a call for a Constitutional Convention.

Thirty
Years Ago

In the
early 1980's, we did not have home computers, lap tops, or IPADs; neither
did we have unlimited long-distance telephone rates. We only had our Fax
machines and our telephones. Yet, the nation's patriotic groups, and the
Kitchen Militia gals, worked tirelessly to stave off a call for another
Constitutional Convention. We knew the dangers, we knew the precedents,
and we knew what was waiting in the wings to replace the Constitution
given to us by honorable men. We knew that if we lost our Constitution
and Bill of Rights, that the great experiment in freedom and liberty would
be lost forever.

We worked
to inform people of what a new Constitutional Convention would bode for
America. Thirty-two of the necessary 34 states needed to call a new Con-Con
had petitioned the Congress for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget
Amendment (BBA).

(An
amendment to the Constitution is first proposed by the Congress with
a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and
the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds
of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the
Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention.
This is the way we've ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights.
It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify
the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution. The danger in the
ratifying process is that Congress decides whether it will be ratified
by the legislators of 38 states, or by special Ratifying Conventions.
As well, the legislators who called for the Convention can be totally
circumvented - having no voice in the outcome, thus opening a Pandora's
Box and powerless to close it.)

Thirteen
states finally recalled their calls; Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho,
Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming,
Oklahoma, and in 2010, Tennessee. [Link]
Now some are again calling for a Con-Con.

Our
Constitution is still a barrier to the globalists, and they hate this
document. The elite have always wanted to destroy it because, as Patrick
Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government
to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain
the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
The One Worlders have a new constitution waiting in the wings which will
grant us privileges by the state. The distinctive characteristic of our
Constitution is that it created a federal government of only limited,
defined, and enumerated powers! We must focus on the limited powers we
delegated instead of our "rights." Rights pre-date and pre-exist
the Constitution. Only with this conception of rights can we avoid having
black-robed federal judges determine the scope and extent of our rights.

We have
elected officials in local, state, and federal governments who have no
problem trampling our Constitution. We have heard the cries from the right
and left for a BBA via an Article V Constitutional Convention. The Constitution
LIMITS what the federal government is allowed to spend
with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous
items today would fill an encyclopedia. Our Constitution does not authorize
foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard,
or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
We have a majority of Republicans in congress today...so why in heaven's
name aren't they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

Forty-five
Republican Senators and the majority of Republican Representatives absolutely
love the BBA and desire its passage, including
Rand Paul. They talk openly about it to the dumbed down electorate,
never telling us that it would LEGALIZE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING.
This would give Congress a free hand to spend whatever they want to on
any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits
CONGRESS alone to the spending of money!

The
BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional
Budget
Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the
Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the
budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would
legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful, but Section 3 of the
BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers
the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine
taxes to the President. Congress will simply become a
rubber stamp. Senate
bill from 112th Congress. House
bill from 113th Congress.

Former
Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Mike Lee, (neo-cons) are determined to
jam this down our throats along with Congressional representatives like
Michelle Bachmann. Don't tell me they don't understand what they're doing,
because all of them love the out-of-control spending and the BBA would
legalize it. In the July 7, 2011, WSJ, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion
of conservative politics, Maine's Senator Olympia Snowe, to push the BBA,
stating it is The
Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending. Liars and thieves!

The
1787 Convention

In 1787,
delegates gathered in a Conference of States (not a Constitutional
Convention) to discuss problems with interstate commerce. They were given
strict instructions by the Congress that they were to meet only for "the
sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation."
Eleven of the twelve states present, specifically instructed their delegates
to discuss nothing more than the commerce issue.

Once
convened, the delegates of the twelve states, formed a "committee
of the whole" (chaired by the elected George Washington, President
of the Conference), took a vote, and declared the Articles of
Confederation null and void! For five months they debated behind
closed doors and emerged with an entirely new form of government. Our
1787 Constitution was the result.

The
Conference of the States had become a runaway Constitutional
Convention! It happened then, and we are certain it will happen
again if we don't stop the process. The precedent was set.

An Article
V Constitutional Convention today would undoubtedly mutate the same way
the 1787 "Conference of States" mutated into a Constitutional
Convention. A Constitutional Convention makes its own rules, cannot
be limited, and could indeed throw out the entire structure,
including the narrowly defined, limited and enumerated powers granted
the federal government, just like the framers threw out the Articles
of Confederation in 1787! Remember, the Bill of Rights tells the federal
government what it CANNOT do!

About
50 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were practicing
Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the
Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty
while at the same time limiting government power. There are absolutely
no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention
will not be repeated by the second one, the result being a new Constitution.
However, you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian
men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item
Convention like the BBA, wrote limiting language into their calls, (thinking
they could indeed control the agenda, and stating they would secede from
the Convention if it overstepped the bounds). Nevertheless, the precedent
of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence. A Con-Con
is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken
down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on
it, tearing it apart. There are NO RULES!

As well,
the Unbridled
Power of the delegates to a Con-Con has been acknowledged several
times by various State Supreme Courts, and a letter from former U.S. Chief
Justice Warren Burger confirms the danger. In his letter Justice Burger
said:

"
. . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a
Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and
set its own agenda. . . After a convention is convened, it will be too
late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda."

There
were delegates
from twelve of the thirteen states in attendance at the original 1787
Convention. Rhode Island did not send delegates. The most notable statesmen
present were Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom
signed the final Constitution. Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates
ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied.
Their views were summed up by Benjamin
Franklin, who said,

"There
are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve,
but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether
any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.
... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching
so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..."

The
names of several prominent Founders
are notable for their not having participated in the Constitutional Convention.
Thomas
Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless,
Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly
as a gathering of “demi-gods”). Jefferson later stated that
had he been present at the Convention, he would have urged term
limits for politicians. John
Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he
wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick
Henry refused to participate because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia,
tending toward the monarchy." Also absent were John
Hancock and Samuel
Adams. Many of the states’ older and more experienced leaders
may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to
attend the Convention, which had originally been planned to strengthen
the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a Constitution
for a completely new national government.

Now,
think about the delegates and leaders of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
They were men of letters, with integrity, honor, and love of liberty and
freedom. The Founders of America were patriots, visionaries, revolutionaries,
world shakers, and nation builders. They joined together to protect America's
citizens from an over reaching, all powerful, centralized federal government.
Although imperfect men, they were statesmen who understood government
needed to be chained to protect the people.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Can
you imagine the delegates we would get from the Congress today? It would
be the same Congress which gave us a $16 trillion plus debt, which won't
stand up to Obama, that passed the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and all the
other egregious bills they've signed on to. Can you see the delight of
the globalists in destroying the Constitution that binds them? Can you
imagine today's Washington D.C. leaders deciding how to change our Constitution?
I tremble at the very thought.

Who
is behind the push for a Con-Con call today? What is the Compact for America?
Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell? What new Constitution
is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations?
We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.

Finally,
a special thank you to my friend, retired attorney, Publius Huldah, for
her help with this article.

Kelleigh
Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections
to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive
producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept
at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio
hosts. She and her husband live in Knoxville, TN, and she has owned her
own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Prior to moving to Tennessee,
Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune
100 company in Ohio. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater
girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown
Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Kelleigh is presently
the secretary for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign, a strong freedom advocate
group.